Maybe. But I don't think all the backers had this mindset. They genuinely wanted the thing to move ahead (and possibly get a lower cost copy). And Sony managed to grasp the reach it will have which may help them fine tune the end price. Even if it is the case, they got feedback, they got time to fix stuff and develop on the feedback and they got data to work their release and pricing strategy (maybe even ports). Assuming they use it right.
Years ago, I took a journalistic excursion through the nation's white supremacist scene.
And learned nothing it seems.
We should consider whether people who run such websites bear some responsibility for the nine dead at Charleston's Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
We should consider if pieces like what she wrote bear some responsibility in censorship, totalitarianism.
You combat hate speech with more speech, not by censoring speech.
You know, nowadays hate speech and 'terroristic speech' is only as successful as the media and a bunch of morons out there allows them to be. As you said, a super effective way to deal with these kinds of stupidity (hate speech/ terrorism) is to show how stupid, ignorant such speech is. You know, make fun of how silly the message is and not necessarily waste time with the messengers.
Well, it is some sort of miracle that Pandora is still afloat considering how hard the music industry is trying to kill them so they should simply drop such recordings if the labels ask for unreasonable rates.
The ugly about this system is that if you don't pay what they want you can't go for another source If company X sells a product for outrageous price there will be another one to step in and offer sane prices (with exceptions, courtesy of another broken part of the IP system) but in this case you can't simply go elsewhere. Royalties should be standard and heavily regulated. Anybody that wanted to use any song should be able to go, pay a fee based on standardized factors and just compete on who offers the best/most financially efficient service. Other than that it's either pay and die or die without paying. Sounds a lot like organized crime.
Who wouldn't pay to be able to watch sports events via Netflix or a similar streaming system (of those who like it of course). Who wouldn't pay for a news channel that offered on demand content as well via Netflix or similar? I'm using about 2 hours of Netflix a day even if it does lag behind on up-to-date content. There's an insanely huge market out there and the channels, producers are wasting it because reasons.
If you don't have to maintain the infra-structure things should be cheaper. So why don't the cable industry asses don't free up the bandwidth by stopping the traditional channel model and focus on offering good connections and stuff on demand that people will pay for? I guess they will be forced towards it at some point when the bleeding gets so hemorrhagic that it will be difficult to ignore the financial losses.
There's a reply function, you know? Sometimes we mark the thread to get warns for answers.
You are deep into the conspiracy insanity so there's little anybody can say that will reach you. Leigh and Troy exposed very valid and conclusive points. Nobody is saying there are no privacy concerns with how Glass was implemented. Still most of the crazies out there were going way overboard. And many times we've seen TD point at some issues with privacy beyond Glass and into Android (the broad "all or nothing" permissions system for instance).
So you do make good points, some of which were also raised by TD, but they are both out of the context of the article and with unnecessary attacks towards TD and the writers.
Pick a snowden leak- and imagine someone telling you it 5 years ago; would you have called them or the idea a 'tin hat'?
Most of us wouldn't after the US approved the Patriot Act. It was only the ugly coming to life. Again, the privacy concerns you expressed were more or less covered and some ARE overblown since any smartphone can do the same. I recorded an interaction once just putting my phone in my pocket and making it record. Glass had a led that warned it was recording, smartphones don't even have such thing. So there are many more privacy issues today that aren't restricted to Glass.
There is one point that has its merits and was raised in the article about their collective freak out: taxi drivers have to pay quite large sums of money to be allowed to provide such services. So while Uber may have its casual drivers there are those who are making a living out of it. Which isn't a problem at all. However when you have some people paying big to go into the business and others that aren't paying at all you do create a very unfair situation. What I'm saying is that years of regulatory capture will turn against cab drivers in a very ugly way. It's not Uber's fault nor its users but it does create a serious problem. The solution is simple but complex to apply: eliminate the steep fee to enter the cab business.
Maybe we should use this as an example of why regulatory capture is bad?
So yea, we know other nations are dirt bags too, but we are busy bagging on the US right now with the rest getting a pass.
Just because the US is the most prominent 'target' and self-professed 'bastion of freedom and justice'. But really, no. There's plenty of discussion on many, many, many other countries. You have a very narrow view of the world if you are drawing those conclusions based on Techdirt alone. It's an American site so it's only natural that it tends to focus on the western countries and the major players. TD is not obliged to talk about Zimbabwe or New Guinea or something (though sometimes you see some of these less known places over here). I read TD and I am interested in things in the US as what the country does still has a lot of influence in the west and in my country. And we know that bad ideas tend to be more contagious than good ones.
As for Russia, I'd say I couldn't care less because they have little influence here but it would be like not caring for Africa because I'm well and dandy here. I do care but I spend less time on Russia because of what I exposed above. And because time is limited so one has to focus on something or risk not producing anything.
...and the desire of those terrorists to poison others against our values and our way of life...
...on the grounds that I do not consider their presence in the UK to be conducive to the public good...
Notice how she is sociopath with a great megalomaniac tendency. It's about me, me, me. Our stuff, what I think it's right. Fuck you all who don't agree with the almighty ME. People like these are disgusting. And often are diagnosed psychopaths. So there's that, UK has some loon in charge of defense it seems. (Never mind the rest of the Government)
I want this partnership to reclaim that debate…. to defeat their poisonous ideology… and deny them the opportunity to spread messages of hate and division.
LOL. What the fuck is the message she's spreading about then? If anything it's hate, division AND insanity. She's doing the exact same as ISIS. Shameful.
I don't fear petty terrorists, I fear people like May.
are no longer in danger of entering the public domain
Great, we are no longer in danger of others being inspired by their work and producing great new things too! We may also make sure that songs that are stored somewhere far from the listeners have plenty of time to finish rotting and vanishing from history!
I'd ask how these people can't see the insanity of it but I'm convinced they can but they fail to care out of the top of their piles of cash grabbed via regulatory capture.